09-20-2024, 11:08 AM
Let me start by saying that I fall into the "Luke Warmist" category when it comes to the spectrum of beliefs regarding Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. The Luke Warmists understand that:
- The Earth's atmosphere is warming
- The Earth's atmosphere has been warming at an accelerated rate since about the mid-1800's
- Most of the accelerated warming since the mid-1800's can be attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO and CO2), the majority of which originate from anthropogenic sources.
... However, unlike the alarmists, the Luke Warmists haven't been convinced that there is an existential crisis related to that warming ... and they also have a lot of questions regarding how to respond to whatever level of warming there is. Two of the most prominent Luke Warmists are Steven Koonin (author of "Unsettled") and Judith Curry (heralded quite frequently by Climate Deniers who don't seem to recognize that she doesn't espouse what the Deniers believe).
The snapshot in the post I quoted was from Morrison's article in the Daily Skeptic ... an article which cherry picks some passages in the study and misrepresents the thrust of the study. The thrust of the study dealt with differences between the temperature response of the Arctic region (north pole, Greenland, etc) and the Antarctic region (south pole) to monotonic increases in greenhouse gases across the globe - the "common sense" perception being that both polar regions should respond identically to the uniform increases in greenhouse gases occurring in both regions. That's what the Deniers are espousing: that if the warming were due to greenhouse gases, then the warming in the Antarctic would match the warming in the Arctic.
The study does state:
Connect With Us